- 8 -
rights. United States v. Natl. Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713,
722 (1985); Blanche v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-63.
Therefore, whatever rights or interests, if any, petitioner held
in the LA property during the years in issue must be determined
by applying applicable California law. It is presumed under
California law that the owner of legal title is the owner of the
full beneficial title. Cal. Evid. Code sec. 662 (2001). This
presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.
Id.
In Uslu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-551, the taxpayers,
Mr. and Mrs. Uslu, made mortgage payments on a residence for
which legal title was held by Mr. Uslu’s brother and sister-in-
law. We found in Uslu that the taxpayers “exclusively held the
benefits and burdens of ownership”, and, therefore, were the
equitable and beneficial owners of the residence. However, in
Song v. Commissioner, supra, where legal title was held by the
taxpayer’s brother, we found that the taxpayer failed to prove
that she had any equitable or beneficial ownership in the
residence.
An important distinction between Uslu and Song was the
completeness of the record and the credibility of the legal title
holder of the residence: Mr. Uslu’s brother and sister-in-law in
Uslu, and the taxpayer’s brother in Song.
In the instant case, the record establishes that during the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011